Hide latency and cost columns on filter

[bekossy]

Issue #1511

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
agenta	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Apr 17, 2024 11:35am

[mmabrouk]

Thanks for the PR @bekossy
It does not work for me, see video

Screen.Recording.2024-04-14.at.11.45.41.mov

Also, can we not close down the menu for filtering each time we select/unselect a column? The right behavior is that the menu get closed if we 1) click somewhere else or 2) click on the menu again. Basically the user would open the menu, start selecting/unselecting column, and then when finished close the menu

Also, can we add a dropdown icon to the right of filer columns to make it clear that it is a drop down

[bekossy]

Thanks for the review @mmabrouk , the PR was actually for a similar issue in the comparison view but thanks for spotting it in the Evaluation results view
I have updated the PR according to the requested changes and it is ready for review

[mmabrouk]

Thanks @bekossy for the quick fix!

I was also under that impression when I read the description. But I don't see any multiselect for filtering column in the comparison view

[mmabrouk]

Thanks for the fix @bekossy
However the new drop down is showing the list of apps and not the list of evaluators!

[mmabrouk]

Thanks for the change @bekossy !

Sorry for the back and forth. I should have written a proper issue with wireframes.

The multiselect for filtering should not filter all columns but only the evaluator

So this should read:

• Output
• Exact Match
• Latency
• Cost

And when you select output, you will hide all output columns for all the selected variants (in the left part).

So let's say I make a comparison of four variants a,b,c,d with two evaluators e1 and e2.

In the beginning I would see 4x5 columns (we always have output, cost and latency in addition to e1 and e2). I would deselect in the left c and d and end up with 10 columns. Then I would deselect cost and latency, and end up with a output, b output, a e1, b e1, a e2, b e2.

Hope that makes sense

[bekossy]

Thank you for the explanation @mmabrouk, I really appreciate!
I have updated the PR to meet the requested changes

[mmabrouk]

Thanks a lot @bekossy !!